Today was a horrible day, because it was a lost day. Oh, Cravitz! It wasn’t all lost, but it was pretty much a lost day. My fault. Although there were a few non-lost things, like some great comments that I read on the Net.
First on the lie that porn is cathartic regarding sexual violence. I’ve argued the same as what is stated below, but since I don’t see a lot of people saying it very often, it was nice to see it.
As to the idea that viewing porn helps prevent violent rape–if this logic were true, then it would be imperative for us to make all sorts of cathartic video games available, to replace actual crime and violence with simulated. We could end violence against GLBT with simulated beatings and killings, and have similar programs simulating the abuse and murder of children and the elderly. If there really is an exhaustible zero-sum equation of violence and wickedness in humans, it would be very important for everyone to spend a certain amount of time pretending they’re Hitler, so as to assure that no one will be.
It’s a ridiculous excuse.
Second, my reply to a liberal that never got published, debating the normalization of homosexuality, because the liberal’s comment was deleted by the moderator (although I did not find it offensive, I imagine the moderator deleted it because it was just one load of liberal homosexuality propaganda):
Sorry, but there are many psychologists who understand how deformed and dysfunctional homosexuality is, and then there are the ignorant ones who don’t. NARTH is a good site to read research of people who actually investigate the causes of homosexuality. Every time psychologists have investigated causes, they have found a long list of problems. Liberals just don’t want to deal with many problems related to sexual psychology.
While homosexuality is not an illness, most destructive sexual ideologies are not “illnesses” either. A person who engages in date rape is not “mentally ill” by psychiatric standards. Neither is someone who produces porn, who exploits prostitutes, or who transmits deadly STDs to dozens of people. Not even pedophilia is thought of as an illness by the junk of liberal psychologists.
Regarding people not choosing to have a homosexual problem, perhaps you have not considered that your thoughts and your behaviors are your choice, or at least you are responsible for them. And homosexuality certainly includes plenty of thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors. All chosen.
And I also think your wrong about people not choosing things that would have bad consequences. If that were true, we wouldn’t have any criminal behavior in the world, because who would choose to a) do a crime, b) be punished? Yet, people choose to do harm and violence constantly. They also choose to pursue all kinds of perverted thoughts and feelings their deformed minds produce.
No one is born with a homosexual problem, and if homosexuals resolved their problems, they would live out their lives like the heterosexuals they were born.
There has been a lot more investigation in the death of Matthew Sheppard than you’ve read. A journalist has written an entire book showing that it was a drug deal gone bad, and that there is reason to suspect his killer was bisexual as well. I don’t know about this mother you mention, but clearly she is a monster. But if you want to talk about monsters, how about Frank Lombard, a homosexual pedophile who adopted two babies to specifically rape them every night? It was people with your ideas that gave him those kids to torture. 15%-50% of adult LGBs have been involved in interpersonal violence. 80% of the sexually abusing priests investigated in the Catholic Church scandal were homosexuals. Men who have sex with men lead the way in spreading HIV and syphilis. And homosexuals just love to sexually degrade people in pornography.
It seems to me you have chosen to ignore many, if not all, the problems that exist with LGBTs.
3) Power and morality
“Intimidation, persuasion, bullying, shaming, ostracism, etc. is what decides who has a place at the table since morality is a matter of belief not fact. Moral debates are only power games. The earth is round and 2 + 2 = 4, those are facts.”
A lot of a person’s sense of good and evil ultimately depends on their feelings. For many people, morality is as objectively true as your favorite flavor of ice cream. Yet, given that harm is not an abstract concept only, it exists in reality, all depends on how accurate or innacurate one’s perception of harm is, which will also determine one’s morality. Add self-interests and other interests, tons of social conditioning, and there is little room left for science, of all things. Liberals, who claim to base their views on science, have actually read very little science, understand very little science, and base most of their morality on the very biased, distorted, and infinitely emotional elements above. If only they had any self-awareness.
4) Liberals and sheep herding
“Liberals are not smarter. They’re just school yard bullies who like to hurl insults towards any group they disagree with. It’s like having a scientific debate, and responding by saying “you’re gay”. Really? I basically proved my point, and that’s you’re response? Except, the lib simply declares themselves correct by virtue.
Of course, when a lib declares their theories to be set in stone facts, other libs will repeat these so called facts. When the public hears the same thing over and over again, they will assume it to be solidified fact. That’s how it goes in liberal science. It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, or something in between. It’s all about how to condition the public to accept the agenda. In most cases, it’s as easy as blasting the public with these “facts”, until there’s no alternative but to accept them for face value.
Libs have invested more time and energy in herding the sheeple into their enclosures. Conservatives tend to favor freedom of choice… A pattern of thinking that libs are well on their way toward eradicating.”
While I disagree that conservatives haven’t done an equal amount of making people into sheep, I certainly agree with the description of what liberals do, and one can never point out enough how disingenuous they are about acknowledging exactly what they are doing.
5) Those odious moderates
Know who I despise most of all? So-called “moderates.” They are mealy-mouthed, flaccid, totally lacking in convictions or principles. They go along to get along, dissembling and equivocating shamelessly.
Hear, hear. Nothing as obnoxious as a “moderate” who is nothing but a spineless, basically clueless, indifferent individual who thinks he is superior because they don’t have a more definite position on an issue.
6) Falling for the liberal lie that homosexuality is normal
I also think some progress has been made in that more people are starting to reject the main tactic of the left of demonizing and maligning anyone who doesn’t normalize homosexuality. They were manipulating conservatives by making them feel guilty for things they were not guilty of.
At its core, liberals want to shove homosexuality as normal down society’s throat, and they used the line that you were a bad person if you believed in a wholesome and healthy view of sexuality that excludes homosexual perversion (along with porn, promiscuity, etc). Many people fell for the normalization of homosexuality.
It will be up to better informed conservatives to dismantle the lie.
7) de Tocqueville – Democracy, power, and mediocrity
Alexander de Tocqueville, 1835, Democracy in America
Freedom cannot possibly be taken as the distinctive characteristic of democracies.
Men are much alike, and they are annoyed, as it were, by any deviation from that likeness; far from seeking to preserve their own distinguishing singularities, they endeavor to shake them off in order to identify themselves with the general mass of the people, which is the sole representative of right and of might in their eyes. However the powers of a democratic society are organized and weighted, it will always be very difficult for a man to believe what the mass of people reject, or to profess what they condemn.The more social conditions become equal and the less power individuals possess, the more easily men drift with the crowd and find it difficult to stand alone in an opinion abandoned by the rest.
What concerns me in our democratic republics is not that mediocrity will become commonplace, but that it may be enforced.
8) Orwellian liberalism
tomfinn says: April 13, 2014 at 12:38 pm
Yeah, “diversity” and “tolerance” have now become a code-words for homogeneity and conformity.
Many years ago I occasionally watched a late-night cartoon on the TV – “Bromwell High.” It was British, extremely cynical, and quite brutal.
There was one episode about “Tolerance.” (You can find it on YouTube.) The kids in the high-school were doing presentations about diversity. One girl made a presentation called “Into the melting pot.” So all these multi-culti students started coming onto the stage, and saying “I am so-and-so, and I am from so-and-so. I like Tupac. My favorite food is KFC. I like text-messaging.” At some point the presenter’s crazy friend shouts: “This ain’t diverse! They is all the same!”
So that’s what we have going on with our “progressive” friends. Your skin can be of any color, and you can have sex with whatever persons and objects you want (presumably including sisters, sheep, tomatoes, etc), as long as: you hate Christianity and especially the Catholic Church, you believe in Global Warming, you think homosexuality is just dandy even if you would rather drink mercury than have gay sex, you believe Russia & China are bad without knowing anything of their cultures or history, you want to save the silly paupers of third world nations from themselves and their prejudices, you like Whole Foods, you are a bourgeois, you believe in Feminism, you believe in Darwinism, you believe in Behaviorism, you believe there are no such things as right or wrong, you believe all of the beliefs listed above are right, you believe there is no ultimate justice, you believe women and gays have been treated unjustly, you believe all cultures are equal, you believe (for example) that the female “circumcision” cultural practices in certain places are barbaric, you hate capitalism and corporatism, you love Starbucks & Apple, you believe bombing the subjects of “evil” dictators (e.g. Obama & Libya) into “democracy” is a good idea, you think Bush’s ridiculous wars were a bad idea, etc etc.
Disbelief in any of the dogmas listed above brands you as a heretic, and, if uncovered, may lead to excommunication. As we saw with the case of Mr. Eich.
I loved his whole compendium of profoundly inconsistent liberal beliefs – which they believe in a rabid way while always thinking they are very consistent.
Update Monday April 14
Mozilla is proving that it is dedicated to pluralism and tolerance by excluding people with different views.
Likewise, Brandeis is proving its institutional commitment to women’s rights by excluding a woman from publicly speaking about women being mistreated at the hands of the Religion of Peace.
Keep in mind, these are the same people who think we have to spend more money in order to get out of debt, as well as that global warming causes more cold weather.
My calendar says “2014,” but I’m pretty certain it is 1984.
Comment by Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/13/2014 @ 10:38 am
I think it’s simpler than that [referring to OP]. The cultural “defect” is cowardice.
Comment by melanerpes (6d31ac) — 4/13/2014 @ 4:55 pm
Plust self-interest and thuggishness. This is exactly what it is.
Richao says: April 13, 2014 at 4:25 pm
These complaints seem odd coming from social conservatives. I taught for one year at an evangelical Christian college as I was wrapping up my dissertation and getting ready to go to law school. Evangelical colleges are some of the most intellectually oppressive and stifling places imaginable. So, if you’re going to lambast Harvard, then take a look at places like Bob Jones, Wheaton, and Liberty.
I always find this argument – and the parallel tu quoque arguments elsewhere (e.g., “sure, maybe the Times is biased, but Fox News!”) curious: Pointing out that Harvard or the Times behave exactly like these caricatures of universities and journalistic organizations is supposed to be a defense of the former? Um, okay, I guess. I mean, I thought the whole point of taking a condescending attitude toward these institutions on the right was to mark one’s own institutions out as, well, being different in kind. But Bobby – and countless others – are telling me that his beef is not with fundamentalism as such: He’s totally fine with the fundamentalism on offer at Harvard. It’s that declassé Christian fundamentalism that he doesn’t like
Listen: I can’t speak to Wheaton and Liberty, but I attended – and received my BA from – Bob Jones. When I left fundamentalism a couple years later and decided to pursue an MA in history, the last thing I expected was to find myself, at an expensive, private university in the northeast, in another stultifying variation on the fundamentalism I had left behind. I took great pleasure in pointing out to classmates the eerie parallels with campus politics at Bob Jones. Unlike Bobby, my classmates and professors were not quite so enthusiastic about openly acknowledging those parallels.
Not all secular institutions are like this: I had the pleasure of attending law school at an institution where real debate on any issue, from any perspective one could defend, was encouraged. But Bobby’s right: Most academics – heck, most humans – are entirely happy to dwell in a narrowly comfortable – I would say constrained – world. Where we differ, however, is that I don’t see this as a virtue.
Frank Stain says: April 13, 2014 at 5:21 pm
Rod, I think Jerry’s post on this thread is worth thinking about. He points out where you and Douthat are both getting it wrong. The basic point is this: ‘diversity’ does not just mean considerable or even maximum variety and difference among expressed ideas. The notion of diversity itself has moral substance . That moral substance is located in its claim that, whatever the understanding of the good life individuals happen to hold, they must respect everybody else’s right to form and pursue their own good (providing they also return this respect).
In so far as social conservatives endorse a vision of the good that relegates some classes of people to second-class status, and excludes them from the benefits of full citizenship, their understanding of the good is incompatible with diversity.
[Alessandra asks: isn’t this exactly what most liberals (and conservatives) do to illegal aliens? But, but… the law says Inspector Javert.]
There is no rational expectation that a society has to tolerate views that are seeking to undermine the moral conditions of diversity.
Hierarchies of race and sex simply undermine the conditions of mutual respect and fundamental human equality that make a diverse society possible.
[Alessandra points out: so do notions that some people have a right to be a citizen and others don’t – the closest ideology we have to the rational of slavery, and with the former being completely enforced today, with the enthusiastic approval of the multitudes who consider themselves far different (in the sense of morally superior) than slavery partisans. The lying does get toxic.]
This is not a problem with ‘diversity’; it simply follows from what the moral content of diversity actually means.
Jerry, there are so many straw men in your post that I’m afraid of a wildfire.
[Alessandra: LOL – I’ll have to remember this one]
The Mighty Favog says:
If it isn’t conducive to pie-charting, it ain’t “diversity.”
Now, if the shallow sons of sapsuckers running newsrooms today were TRULY committed to diversity, as opposed to “diversity,” you would see regular, in-depth coverage of America’s inner cities apart from when the inhabitants thereof show up on the police blotter.
But people who might be vitally interested in that don’t buy the newspaper, now, do they? Very un-SWPL. In a society that holds there is no god but mammon, everybody’s a whore.
Ah yes, so diversity that does not embrace bigotry is not diverse.
[Which only goes to prove that some of the best people in the world are “bigoted” and “homophobic” – without a doubt. Join our club!]
Glaivester says: April 13, 2014 at 8:25 pm
*I am sure that there are lots of very nice, very sincere individual leftists. They are not the ones setting the agenda.
[Alessandra says: This.]
Which leads me to my last issue: do the liberals Rod’s been writing about want to change people’s hearts, or do they just want the satisfaction of condemnation? Martin Luther King Jr. wanted us all to get to the Promised Land together. The liberal bigots we’ve been discussing have decided they’ve reached the Promised Land, and they want to punish everyone they think hasn’t gotten there yet. Of course, the urge to declare “I Know The Truth” exists in all of us – only some philosophies have built-in safeguards to keep us humble and tolerant, which I don’t think modern liberalism currently has.
[This is a very nice point. I’m not sure however, of which other philosophy has worked out that problem in practice. Most fail, even if you can always find particular individuals who succeed, almost regardless of the philosophy. The beauty of the human spirit lies exactly in that.]
Re: That moral substance is located in its claim that, whatever the understanding of the good life individuals happen to hold, they must respect everybody else’s right to form and pursue their own good (providing they also return this respect).
The reason this is so much intellectual fluff and nonsense, is because certain conceptions of the good life- indeed, the *vast majority* of conceptions of the good life, both ancient and modern, are essentially collective. They involve *society as a whole* pursuing certain goods, and individuals pursuing certain goods in concert with another. If one is a Marxist, for example, then one’s conception of the good life involves people owning the means of production in common, and contributing according to their ability, receiving according to their needs. If one is a traditionalist Catholic, then the conception of the good life is going to involve society as a whole protecting life from conception to natural death. If one is a Muslim, the conception of the good life is going to place a great importance on sexual purity not just as an individual virtue but as a social one. An ethnic nationalist is going to have still another vision of the good life, an environmentalist another, an anarchosocialist yet another, a monarchist still another….These are all visions that involve the wholesale transformation of society as a whole. To say to people “you can be a Catholic or a Marxist in your private life, but you must respect other people’s right to have recreational abortions/amass vast personal fortunes in theirs” is nonsensical. This is why liberalism fundamentally imposes a sterile sameness on the world, because it mortally attenuates everyone’s vision of the good life even while claiming to respect them.
You need to read Orlando Patterson on what he calls ‘sovereignal freedom’, and why it’s the oldest and arguably most important kind historically. Personal freedom, without the freedom to try to build the society we want to live in and impose that will on others, is not worth a whole lot, because most conceptions of the good life are inherently collective and social (as befits the fact we are a social animal).